tv All In With Chris Hayes MSNBC March 5, 2019 12:00am-1:00am PST
tonight on "all in" -- >> we've seen abuses of power and obstruction of justice, threats to the mueller investigation. >> brand new allegations of presidential abuse of power, as democrats begin to lay groundwork for impeachment. >> we can't depend on the mueller investigation for this. >> tonight, the trump orders to block a media merger. >> i'm going regret this speech. >> and the vast probe democrats are launching into corruption, obstruction and abuse of power by the president. then -- >> do we love sean hannity, by the way? >> blockbuster new reporting on the cable new channel running america. >> sean hannity and trump speak regularly, almost every night after his show. >> gabe sherman on the president's symbiotic
relationship to trump tv. >> thank you to my very good friend, rupert murdoch. as the democratic presidential field swells, why the 2020 primary is actually two races rolled into one. >> we're not going to concede one state to donald trump. >> when "all in" starts right now. good evening from new york, i'm chris hayes. after two years, it does get harder and harder to be shocked by the ways this president tries to abuse the power of his office. the latest example, newly revealed by "the new yorker" is truly an appalling violation of the country's democratic principles. according to the magazine, the president pressured his administration to intervene in a proposed merger between at&t and time warner, the parent company of cnn, who the president regularly atx. >> i don't take questions from cnn. cnn is fake news. john roberts of fox, let's go to a real network.
>> "the new yorker" reports in the summer of 2017 the president summoned economic advisor gary cohn and chief of staff john kelly into the oval office saying i've been telling cohn to get this lawsuit filed and nothing's happened. i've mentioned it 50 times and nothing's happened. i want to make sure it's filed. i want that deal blocked. kelly said don't you f'ing call the justice department. but the justice department did sue to block the merger. we don't know if the president's order had anything to do with it. doj was demanding at&t sell cnn as a condition for the deal. ultimately a federal judge ruled in favor of the merger over the department of justice's objections. this would not be the first time the president tried to use his power to retaliate against coverage he doesn't like. witness his many tweets attacking "the washington post" and jeff bezos as his alleged blackmail attempt by the trump
allied "national enquirer." that's the kind of thing you might expect where countries where strong men can do whatever they want and it's consistent with the president's behavior throughout his time in office, marked by frequent attempts at abuse of power, only tempered by how often they seem to be stymied. his request for james comey to let michael flynn go. his public brow beating of jeff sessions over sessions' recual and his refusal to investigate the president's political foes. his insistence his son-in-law get a security clearance even after jared kushner was flagged by intelligence officials as a danger and his repeated lying about it. his abuses of power have become so routine. for instance, the president's tweet just this saturday just touting his scottish golf course as a benefit of diplomacy with the uk. he's using his position as president to promote his private business. that is on its face an abuse of power.
many of these abuses don't qualify as prosecutable crimes, but they're exactly the kind of conduct that the impeachment process was designed to address. you know, after this show on friday night, i had a conversation with elizabeth holtzman, former member of congress who sat on the house judiciary committee when it introduced articles of impeachment against nixon. she said we're all too focused on the president's potential crimes as defined by the u.s. criminal code. but that's not, she said, what impeachment is about. there are crimes nixon committed, she said, that weren't in the articles of impeachment and there were articles of impeachment that probably couldn't have been prosecuted as crimes. the way holtzman and her colleagues looked at it. high crimes and misdemeanors were abuses of power commit from on high, from the lofty perch of the oval office. that's what's now in issue in the case of our current president, donald trump. fudging your assets to avoid taxes, as michael cohen just alleged, may be a crime but
maybe it's not impeachable. probably not. on the other hand, it may not be a crime to sending the justice department after media outlets you don't like but it might be a high crime or misdemeanor in the context of impeachment. it just so happens that the current chair of the judiciary committee, the one for starting the impeachment process, sees things in very similar terms. >> crimes and impeachable offenses are two different things. they're just two different tests. we can't depend on the mueller investigation for this. the mueller investigation, number one, we don't know when it's ending, despite lots of rumors. number two, it's focused on specific crimes. and we have to focus much more broadly. >> under nadler, the house judiciary committee is launching a massive investigation of the president, requesting documents from 81 entities and individuals close to him and they're targeting the exact category of conduct that yielded articles of impeachment against anybody's, abuse of the president's power. to help understand what that category means and how we should evaluate this president, i'm joined by chris murphy of
connecticut, a member of the senate foreign relations committee. senator, i've already seen colleagues of yours, including chris van hollen, expressing their shock and dismay about reports about the president lobbying his administration to file suit to block that merger. what's your reaction to it? >> i think as you correctly pointed out, this is a long line in abuses. the fact of the matter is it may be that that merger was worthy of a high level of scrutiny. whether it was because of the malevolent motives of the president, it's just more proof the president is out of control. you've got a couple different avenues here. you've mentioned impeachment but you can also take powers away from him that were granted to him through the legislative process. approval of mergers would be one of them. you could -- you could put more boundaries around the president's ability to influence that decision. right now in the foreign relations committee, we're talking about sanctioning saudi arabia because the president has refused to do that, has violated the law and not given us a
report on the culpability of the saudi regime that he's required to do. congress can also take steps to just handcuff the president, to take powers away from him, to do more ourselves, if we find that the abuses are maybe short of impeachment but still worthy of being addressed. >> you just mentioned saudi arabia. i want to follow up on that, because that's a place in which jared kushner's meeting with mbs. he has the security clearance granted by the president over the objections we now know of almost everyone in that white house, including intelligence agencies, his chief of staff and his white house counsel. and new reporting that the body of "the washington post" columnist that was hacked to death was burned in a large oven at a saudi diplomat's home. a briefing today that you walked out of, frustrated that you got no more information. where is the administration? where are we on this situation? >> so we had another briefing on
the khashoggi murder behind closed doors, briefing today, that was so devoid of any relevant information that the chairman of the committee, who's been a reliable supporter of the president, asked all of us, democrats and republicans to stay behind after the briefing was done to talk about what to do next. and i think there's a growing sense on this issue from republicans and democrats that congress is going to have to take the reins of the u.s./saudi relationship ourselves because the president is unable to get it right. now, we are going to do everything in our power to try to figure out why trump has the saudi relationship so backwards. we've got an emoluments lawsuit in court that may seek to divine whether the president has financial connections. clearly the house will have an ability to find out those answers as well.
as we try to explore those links between the president and the saudi government, congress may be in the process of just taking back some of the reins of foreign policy. that's probably a good thing for the long run of democracy anyway. >> here's another example of that. when you're talking about abuse of power, how to rein in a president, the vote that the house kicked off to essentially withdraw the president's declaration of emergency about the southern border, something that seems facially preposterous since he said he didn't have to do it himself, it now looks like the senate has the votes to pass that revocation of the emergency declaration. >> yeah. rand paul, who maybe isn't always the best vote counter in the united states senate, claiming today that there are at least ten republican votes, which gets you a little bit closer to a veto-proof majority. listen, again, there are so many different ways that you can check the president.
the free press checks the president, the judiciary checks him and congress checks him. but you are also right that the ultimate check is impeachment. what we know is that the president's behavior has already crossed the threshold of what was brought for impeachment before the house in the nixon administration and the clinton administration. in fact he crossed those thresholds in the first weeks or months of office. and so that is another means if these other means fail to control this president. >> you know in all of those cases, when you're talking about the override on the saudi sanctions and possibly getting to a veto override, although i think that seems unlikely in the national emergency declaration or were you to talk about removal from office pursuant to impeachment in the house, those all require a degree of bipartisanship. they require margins that so far have been difficult to muster except for a few russia-related pieces of legislation. i guess the question always is, is that changing? >> i think that's why somebody like mark warner, the ranking democrat on the intelligence committee, was so careful to try to maintain bipartisan agreement as they went through the senate investigation. he knew if they uncovered something impeachable, if
mueller did as well, he needed to be able to still work with republicans. i think we also overestimate the formal ways republicans check this president. i complain as much as everybody else does about their general silence. but i think mitch mcconnell and others have made it pretty clear behind closed doors to president trump that if he did try to fire mueller that there would be consequences. the only way mueller will be able to deliver a report, which i think will ultimately see the light of day, is because republicans have quietly made sure that he gets to do his job. >> senator chris murphy, thank you for your time tonight. for more on how the president tries to abuse his administration's power, i'm joined by alyssa mastromonaco. and nick akerman, former assistant watergate prosecutor. let me start with you, alyssa. imagine the president decides to reach into some antitrust question before the justice
department to go after, let's say, fox news or 20th century fox because he doesn't like what they're reporting about him. >> that would never happen. you know, i think about it when i listened to senator murphy speak. the first or second day we were in the white house, the president was very clear that we serve the people. not his post presidency or anything like that. and so when we talk about sort of what trump -- whatever his offenses, he's putting his own wealth and his own success ahead of the american people. >> and in this case, maybe even his own grudges about the coverage, right? >> he's putting his ego, his wealth, he's putting everything above that of the american people, including those that voted him in. >> this revelation today, there are a few things striking about it, nick. at the time the big question was, was this done for improper reasons. that was the first line in all the coverage of it. >> right. >> and number two, we're just finding out about it now.
number three, it does seem to be an abuse of power on its face. >> it does. this is no different than what happened in watergate. this is history again repeating itself. back then it wasn't at&t, it was itt, the international telegraph and telephone company, where there was a similar allegation about misuse of power with respect to a merger and a whole series of items with it & t. even the attorney general who succeeded john mitchell who went to jail and was convicted of obstruction of justice, pled guilty to lying to congress about his dealings with itt. >> about his intervention in their case on behalf of the president. >> exactly. so this is not something new. this is the exact same thing that happened 45 years ago or more. >> are you -- when chris murphy says that he already crossed the threshold for impeachment in the first few months, chris murphy is not a sort of wildly out there in his rhetoric. >> no. >> does that surprise you to hear that from a u.s. senator? >> no. i do think that people have been for the most part pretty
measured. i personally don't think impeachment is a good thing. it's not good for the country, it's not good for the democrats. it's always better for a president to be voted out. >> why do you think that? >> in this case, in other instances it's maybe different. but i think in the way the speech trump gave at cpac, the way he tries to bait his base is dangerous. >> because why?he gets them all. he says that people who don't agree with them are their enemies. that the press is the enemy of the people. those are not i disagree with you and you disagree with me statements, that is him inciting action. >> so you think impeachment will precipitate some kind of crisis for the country? >> i do, i do. >> i would agree with that to an extent but i think it depends on what mueller finds. if you get a situation, just like you have with the stormy daniels, we have got individual number one as the conspirator in chief and that comes up in the russian matter where he is shown to join that conspiracy to release documents during the campaign with the russians, then
i think your impeachment territory. >> i totally agree with you. >> let me push back on that. part of the point is the abuses of power happened. they're happening in front of our face all the time. what is the check on that, other than the fact, i guess you can argue on either side, the only check is that he seems pretty incompetent at abusing his own power and can't get people to carry out his orders. >> he's not subtle. right, he doesn't have the skill set. i think it's almost that exact thing, though, that he's doing it in plain sight. so it's not that -- some of it is definitely hidden, but some of what he says is just so outrageous and obvious and says to the public, that i think that maybe the average person thinks it's not that bad. if he's satisfying it out loud, maybe it's not that bad. >> at the end of the day this is
a political process, impeachment. you not only have to get a majority of the house to vote articles of impeachment, but you have to get two-thirds of the senate. which means you need a number of republicans that feel strongly enough that what he has done -- >> to remove him. >> -- is off the charts. >> but there's also a case to be made, and people have made this case in previous -- in the three previous instances in the case of andrew johnson, richard nixon and bill clinton, that part of it is just defending constitutional principles. the president saying you should prosecute my political enemies is a red line thing that should be fought against. >> but that's what nixon did. >> right. >> but he was not going to be impeached for that. he was going to be impeached because he was trying to use the cia and fbi to cover up the watergate matter. >> so the president is not as good at abusing his power? >> yes.
i think he's not that smart. and i think that he is -- even from the security clearance process -- >> yes. >> -- the fact that we talk about, oh, he gave jared kushner a top-secret security clearance. top secret? we're overlooking top secret is not even adequate for what he's doing. >> he did not give him the highest clearance. >> he did not give him the highest clearance. he doesn't have code word clearance. but that's the thing. we're like, oh, he gave him a top-secret clearance, but that's not even half of the story. >> but what does that say to you about this presidency and how it does or doesn't work? >> i think that it is a chaotic whirlwind of garbage that we can't possibly keep up with. >> right. >> and then when you look at the things that he's doing, it's like do i really care that much about jared kushner's clearance? >> but this gets this back to this thing and i've seen this defense, which is essentially, we've seen it already marshalled in favor of the president, his allies and russia, which is essentially they're too incompetent to rise to the level of committing serious offenses. >> yeah, but they haven't been that incompetent. >> that's my point. >> the doj brief got filed. for the record, it got filed. he may have ranted 50 times but it got done. >> and it got done and that's
going to be an investigation and hopefully we'll find out what that was about. but if it's true that he conspired with the russians, that they were able to help on the campaign and he agreed to take away the sanctions in return for that and keep it to this point where it hasn't been totally revealed, that's pretty amazing. >> that i would agree. i would also say we just learned this thing about the order to cohn now. not everything leaks at the time it's happening. great to have you both. next, democrats take the first real steps towards potential impeachment launching an extensive investigation of the president and the people around him, from donald trump jr. to the nra. congressman ted lieu on who his judiciary committee wants to hear from and why, in two minutes. hear from and why, in two minutes.
why are all these business owners so excited? we're going to comcast. it's ahead of the game, ahead of the curve. comcast business is for me. it's switch and save days at comcast business. right now, get fast, reliable internet for $49.95 a month and save $600 a year. just one more way we take your business beyond. but hurry, switch and save days ends april 7th. i can't wait to go home and tell everyone about it. i just wanna get it right now. guess what i'm gonna do. (laughing) call today. comcast business. beyond fast. today democrats on the house
judiciary committee unleashed a sweep, wide ranging investigation into president trump and his many associates. the opening salvo in an inquiry that seems like it will very likely move towards impeachment at some point. so this is it. this is the thing democrats said they were going to do and which the president feared, which is to legally compel document production. they are not subpoenaing yet but they can. reading through the list of 81 people and organizations is like reading a compendium of presidential scandal, corruption and abuse of power. like victor vexel berg who showed up at trump's inauguration and whose investment firm paid michael cohen $500,000 through the same llc that cohen used to pay hush money to stormy daniels. or rona graf who has been asked to turn over all documents related to the contents of a meeting between president trump and vladimir putin. it has been pointed out while donald trump jr., eric trump are on the list, ivanka trump is absent.
it also won't be the only document request. jerry nadler's staff said another letter would be going out soon and cautioned against reading into why some people didn't receive letters on monday. joining us now ted lieu of california. what can you tell us about the logic of this list? what unifies it, why these names and these entities. >> thank you, chris, for your question. let me first say that i hope our investigation exonerates donald trump. i don't want to think that our president is a crook. but i fear that our investigation will not do that. we're going to take the facts wherever it may lead us and leave no stone unturned. this is just a first salvo of 81 organizations and individuals that we want to get documents from. and with regard to ivanka trump that you mentioned, i just want to note that running a business into the ground is interesting. not sure that's a crime.
>> let me ask you this. the argument that you are seeing from folks and allies of the president, devin nunes, for instance, is that essentially there's no collusion, they haven't found collusion so they're just going to go rooting around all of the president's other stuff. nunes is saying there's no collusion, all these investigations are in search of a crime. democrats have no evidence to impeach president trump, ridiculous. what do you say to the argument that this is not a fact-finding mission but politically motivated where the facts are being reverse engineered around what you already feel about the president? >> based on public reporting, donald trump's campaign chairman, paul manafort, colluded. he gave the russians internal polling data and was working with the russians based on the public reporting. so the question of whether donald trump knew about what was
happening, we don't know yet. the special counsel has not concluded his investigation. but it is a limited investigation, mueller's investigation. they just want to know did someone commit a crime related to russian interference. the house judiciary's oversight mission is far broader. we want to know did donald trump or his associates or family members commit any crime. >> and do you think about crime, to go back to what jerry nadler was saying and what elizabeth holtzman told me, do you think about crime in the sense of the u.s. criminal code? do you think about crime in terms of wrong actions? do you think about it in terms of the constitutional provision about high crimes and misdemeanors vis-a-vis impeachment? >> those are great questions. first of all, we want to know did donald trump, his family or associates commit any crime. second, we want to know did they commit any unethical misconduct, whether or not it rises to the level of a federal offense. and third, how do we prevent this from happening again, and we want to be transparent with the american people. if it takes us to impeachment, we'll go there. if it doesn't, we won't go there. >> how much are you will to go to the mat? my understanding is these are voluntary requests at this point. sometimes these are second letters that have been sent
because they were sent in the minority. at a certain point there's a question about how much do you fight this? does the cherish you subpoenas? do you go to court over this? et cetera. >> it will depend on each individual company. if you look at the letters we sent, they were not mass form letters. they were detailed letters to companies and individuals with very specific requests related to their own set of facts. and based on what we sent out, we hope to get a lot of documents back. if people don't want to send that, then we will negotiate with them. if we have to, we will start looking at subpoenas. >> should we expect when you look at this list of individuals, everyone from the nra to hope hicks and sean spicer who used to work there to the trump campaign itself to erik prince who's implicated in trying to set up this back channel in this obscure meeting in the seychelles, should we expect these are people that will come before the committee or be compelled to do so at some point? we want to talk to all these individuals at some point.
we certainly want their documents. some individuals we'd like before a public hearing. some we can just interview with members of our staff. i'm glad you mentioned hope hicks. let's give an example of hope hicks. she lied to the american people, basically saying repeatedly that trump had nothing to do with russia and his associates, no meetings with russia. it turns out that was just a lie. we want to know, well, did donald trump tell her to lie? what does she know about what happened? what kind of orders was she given or did he just make this stuff up at the time. so that's why we have all these individuals that we want to talk to, because we want to connect the dots and really put out a narrative as to what happened, why it happened, how to prevent this from happening again. >> congressman ted lieu, thank you for taking some time. >> thank you, chris. coming up, new reporting on the lengths fox news went to to ensure donald trump won the election and the co-dependent relationship between the cable news channel and the president of the united states. those details right after this.
(danny) let me get this straight. after a long day of hard work... ...you have to do more work? (vo) automatically sort your expenses and save over 40 hours a month. (danny) every day you're nearly fried to a crisp, professionally! (vo) you earned it, we're here to make sure you get it. quickbooks. backing you.
we have long 9 donald trump and his allies were absolutely terrified of stormy daniels telling the world about their alleged sexual encounter with trump. we know that because they went to extraordinary lengths to keep daniels from telling that story with the famously tight-fisted future president even arranging for $130,000 hush money payment shortly before the election. today, we learned more about a second part of that effort. jane mayer reporting in "the new yorker" that fox news knew about the alleged sexual encounter and the hush money payment before the election but killed the story their own reporter found in order to protect trump. it's a story that oliver darcy first reported last year. she reports in killing the story, the then head of fox news.com told the reporter, quote, good reporting, kiddo.
but rupert wants donald trump to win so just let it go. rupert, would of course we rupert murdoch. they do not deny killing the story which did not break until a year after trump became president. he insisted the story, which we now know to have been true, was nowhere near being something that would have passed muster, echoing a comment from fox news last year. the network declined to comment on mayer's new reporting. the decision to kill the story came in october 2016, which you might remember also happens to be when "the washington post" published the "access hollywood" tape in which the president boasts about sexual assault. particularly in the context of that tape, the stormy daniels story could have been devastating. because fox news killed the story and the president pads hush money, the daniels' affair did not get out until after the votes were cast. joining me now are gabe sherman, angela corzon. your reaction on them spiking it with those terms. like rupert wants them to win. >> can we revel in the fact that
a fox news producer saying a story doesn't pass muster on a network that spews misinformation and lies every day. that shows you the lengths they went to cover up to help donald trump win. we knew in 2016 there was an alliance after trump got the republican nomination that fox news was going to become what ultimately became state tv. that's what the audience wants. they were beholden to the trump base, which formed basically the entire fox news audience. they had no power, even if they wanted to break with donald trump, that would be game over for their business. >> you mean marketwise. >> yes, marketwise. back when megyn kelly was feuding with donald trump, fox news producers could see her ratings going down. the audience did not want to hear it.
>> angelo, that gets to the relationship as it exists today. it's described as symbiotic, it's sort of a partnership. it's almost impossible to distinguish the white house operation now run by bill shine, the comms operation who used to run fox news and was roger ailes second in command and the white house itself. >> just to underscore that, just to give one example, there was a time last summer where the fox & friends segment was an entire package built around one of the claims in donald trump's tweet. donald trump tweeted about that segment, seemingly disconnected from the fact that he was even the source of it. which i think was just amazing. >> he tweeted about the segment as if here's some new information i just learned in my morning shows. >> to me that goes to show how difficult it is sometimes to
tease out really who's leading who. but it gets to what i think was one of the key takeaways aside from the fact that it was more of a propaganda operation and that is that fox is afraid of its own audience too now. so could they stop if they wanted to? it doesn't seem that way. >> that's what happened during the shutdown, which is really interesting to me. at a certain point he's trapped in a corner. his approval ratings are going down. it's really bad politically for him and there's no way out. so he cuts his losses. and then it's like you watch the fox machine whir into gear to essentially defend it and sell it to a base that they're both mutually scared. >> yeah, yeah, exactly. and this is why just looking at the cohen hearing the other day, you know, what's so dangerous about those is people can see these events with their own eyes. and in moments like that, the fox news machine has to basically try to convince the audience, don't believe what you are seeing, this is the reality in which we think you shouldn't have it.
>> there's sort of a bunch of stuff in the article as to where precedents might be in this and obviously there have been relationships between media moguls, executives, heads of state and people in power for a long time. is this new and distinct what we're seeing in the last two years to your mind, angelo? >> i think it's very important because there's always been so much criticism of fox news. one of the things that's really, really important to make sure we articulate now, it's not just the fact that they're biased, this is different and distinguishable in that it's actual aligned propaganda. that gets to what gabe was mentioning, the ability to transform reality for the key viewer, trump, and the audience. the other example was last summer, just to rewind, when mueller was first appointed, in the 40 days after that, jay sekulow, donald trump's lawyer,
was on fox news every single night. he was practically sean hannity's co-host. this is the world we live in now. it's different. >> one other point i want to make is this is not just about politics, this is about big business. rupert murdoch, the media mogul has a personal relationship with the president. the democratic congress might want to find out what favors did the murdoch family get because of this access. i've reported in the past that trump asked rupert murdoch to submit names for the s.e.c. chairman. in fact rupert murdoch reached out to donald trump and asked if his ex-wife, wendy murmurdoch, w a chinese spy. trump talked to the intelligence agencies about her connections to the chinese government. >> have you reported that? >> yes. that's what sources are telling me. >> wait, but has that been in print yet? >> no. >> wait, say that again. i want to make sure i understand this. the allegation is what? >> that sources close to murdoch told me in a conversation with the president, he asked him if the intelligence agencies could look into whether his ex-wife was a chinese asset. >> and this is in the context of
a divorce between the -- >> they have already been long divorced. but this was just, hey, this is my ex-wife, could you look into that. >> that's a crazy thing. >> now, i don't know if trump actually did follow through on that. as jane mayer reported, trump also vented about we should get the justice department to stop the cnn merger. nothing was followed up on that. the fact that these conversations and these mutual relationships are happening is something that crosses a line from just access journalism to whether there is an abuse of power. >> right. and the conversations happening which we know are documented between murdoch. let me just say one more thing, angelo. i will say having watched fox news in 2003 and the run up to the iraq war, that was state tv then too. it would have made north korean programmers blush if you look at what they were doing to sell the war at that point. >> that's true. the one thing that makes that a little different is a lot of places sort of fell into the trap of bringing on military -- >> broadcasting propaganda. >> unfortunately in that case that was more of a collective
problem instead of a specific one. >> gabe sherman and angelo, thank you for being with me. till to come, how democrats can distinguish themselves in an ever-growing field of presidential candidates. tonight's thing 1, thing 2 is next. thing 1, thing 2 is next these folks, they don't have time to go to the post office they have businesses to grow customers to care for lives to get home to they use stamps.com print discounted postage for any letter any package any time right from your computer all the amazing services of the post office only cheaper get our special tv offer a 4-week trial plus postage and a digital scale go to stamps.com/tv and never go to the post office again!
thing 1 tonight, huge news about trump tv that we haven't gotten to yet. they have dumped one of their most powerful thinkers. no, not brian kilmeade, this guy. >> the era of the pajama boy is gone january 20th and the alpha males are back. >> yes, the era of sebastian gorka is over. gorka said he decided not to renew his contract with fox but the timing is terrible. he just gave that amazing please boo speech at cpac. >> that is why alexandria ocasio-cortez -- [ booing ] -- has introduced the green new deal. they want to take your pickup truck. they want to rebuild your home. they want to take away your hamburgers. this is what stalin dreamt about but never achieved. >> i'm not sure stalin was dreaming about your burgers, but gorka is, to be fair, like half
of cpac. >> with this green new deal, they're trying to get rid of all the cows. >> let me say i support cows. i hope to see peta supporting the democratic party now that democrats want to kill all those cows. >> as far as those cows you mentioned, i've got 100 cows. just let alexandria ocasio-cortez show up and try to take my cows away. >> i love cows, jerry, they're delicious. >> welcome back to cow talk. trump junior loves him some cow as does his father, especially the kind you can get through a drive-through window. that's thing 2 in 60 seconds.
the north dakota state bison are the fcs title winners in college football. fcs used to be division i-aa and usually that doesn't warrant a presidential visit. donald trump's new thing is to summon large groups of elite athletes to the white house and feed them piles of healthy fast food. he first did this with the ncaa
division i championship winners, the clemson tigers. his reasoning was that the government shutdown closed the catering operation. but there was just a giddy president and a small mountain of room temperature big macs. >> we had the clemson tigers here and i did the same thing. we could have had chefs, but we got fast food because we know what -- i know you people very well. and i'm going to finish this quick because we've got to get that stuff, although it's being kept pretty warm. >> i know you lunking hunks of meat. the president's patriotism is literally to embrace the american flag, just couldn't stop talking about those great american burgers today, even though there was not a mad rush for the fare. >> and then we weren't going to do this, because i've never done that before, before clemson. but we were during a shutdown and we had nobody working. somebody suggested and i said, yeah, but we don't have people working. but the staff is so good, i said don't worry about it, fellas,
let's just go get some mcdonald's, wendy's. burger king. we have -- we like american companies, okay. chick-fil-a, they say. chick-fil-a. so grab yourself something. we can eat right here. in fact i would have one right up here but i don't think i'll want to do that because it will be too big a story for these people. termites, feasting on homes 24/7. we're on the move. roger. hey rick, all good? oh yeah, we're good. we're good. termites never stop trying to get in, we never stop working to keep them out. terminix. defenders of home.
as more and more candidates announce their intentions for 2020, we have an announcement of our own here tonight. i will be hosting msnbc's very first town hall of the election season two weeks from tonight with 2020 hopeful kirsten gillibrand. we'll meet in the all-important state of michigan monday march 18th to talk to voters, take some questions, as the senator from new york makes her case to be democratic nominee for president. more details in the coming week including ways for you to come see it live if you're in michigan so check back with us often. gillibrand includes governor, senators, mayor and private citizens, all of whom are trying to distinguish themselves and how the hopefuls figure that out is coming up next.
e hopefuls figure that out is i'm running for president because we need dreamers in washington but also need to get things done. i've proven again and again i can produce the change washington has failed to deliver. join me and we'll repair the damage done to our country and be stronger than ever. >> the newest entry to jump into the presidential race, colorado governor. he follows another two-term governor of washington state who kicked off his presidential campaign on friday. on saturday, bernie sanders officially got things started with the second time after his announcement with a campaign rally in brooklyn and there is a report out today that former vice president joe biden is trying to get his fundraising in line before announcing his much anticipated run himself. i think it's healthy to think of the primary as two contest. one is policy focus in which different constituencies and
interest groups and voters will debate what democratic priorities are from universal health care to college affordability and meeting the civilization challenge of a warming president and candidate focused where 2020 hopefuls are going to have to figure out a way to distinguish themselves to stand out. talk about the tension between these contests and how it might play out. i'm joined by moody mills and a contributing opinion writer for "the new york times." what do you think about this very, very crowded field along these two ax and there is, what is you're pitch to breakthrough the noise when there is maybe two dozen candidates? >> yeah, well, so, here is the thing.
there was a poll that showed democratic primary voters actually most of them want people that have substance and big bold exciting ideas. so it's not so much about what candidate can beat trump and the resist mode we came to 2018 on with the wins. i think this conversation around policy ideas and who has the biggest proposals that will captivate the imagination and talk about where we go will be fun for the party to explore. >> so you think actually those policy ideas end up being a distinguishing aspect in this competition? >> sure, they do. so many people are running on progressive ideas but have to distinguish themselves how they get policies passed. you're seeing people double down on economic disparities and figuring that out and people double down on climate change and talk about medicare. those will be driving factors. a lot of lip service has been paid and the voters are looking to see who has a plan to get this stuff done and stimulated by that conversation. that will play out in a way that's fruitful for the party. >> i thought endsly's announcement and the way he is pitching his campaign is interesting. he is saying i'm a climate candidate. this is the one issue that's the most important issue by far and running on. you don't often see candidates
sort of do that and it is interesting to me as a way of shaking up the race or short of forcing different kinds of conversations. >> the kids are tweeting about that. he doesn't have a chance and what candidate takes the ticket and takes his lead on climate change and you need policy. this is what shouldn't happen. we don't need a remake of 2004 and have this milk toast, mush, vanilla yogurt appeal, this magical unicorn, the real american that drinks real coffee. you need a bold progressive vision and communicate that well.
a.o.c. talked about that, taking our hamburgers, if she takes our fish burgers, the muslims will raise. the tax on the 1%. fox and friends viewers supported it. they went crazy. so because it was that raging socialist dwight eisenhower, that was his policy. you need a bold progressive vision and the right messenger. look at 2018. people want to see a representative democracy. women, people of color and that's my slight concern about biden and bernie sanders and trump that 2020 will be like the ticket of ben-gay versus vehicles vapor rub not trying to be agest but at the same time, i'm concerned as a person of color i want to see that enare -- representation and progressive message boldly stated by messengers who look like the rest of us. >> the representations
absolutely going to matter and because this is the most diverse presidential field ever, the message will matter. they will look at candidates who are diverse and look where their platitude stops and story starts. that will be the trick. right now it's nice to look at the picture of the big umbrella of the democratic party and everyone standing up on the stage looking pretty and reflective, but then when people open their mouths, we'll start to see how deep folks are. >> that's a great point. there is a bunch of different vectors. there is policy and substance. what are you campaigning on? there is this political charisma and breaking through in terms of the message and to your point, what we seen so far is left liberal sort of progressive ideas that are pushing the agenda now but we'll start to see the entrance with biden, people sort of self-consciously
trying to go after a more moderate or perspective sglt american people are more liberal than the democratic party. people want to combat cliemtd climate change and gun control. this is very popular. look at the midterm elections. 40 democrats won. the blue wave turned into a tsunami. the poll said 46% of americans love donald trump and people are freaking out. another way of framing that, donald trump should have low 60% approval rating with this bullish economy. the most he's ever gotten is 40s. he's a weak candidate. he only won by 70,000 votes in three states. they should bold and hopeful and communicate that message and i hope biden, whoever else does not just court this myth unicorn voter. >> the strength will do a lot about how people think about what kind of risk they can take,
which will be an interesting complex dynamic as it plays out. thank you for joining us. that is "all in" for this evening. tonight, the most significant move yet since democrats took over the house. we have details of the sweeping congressional investigation into the people around donald trump and seemingly all things related to trump. plus seems like we just said this, but once again the week before us could be consequential. consequential. with a lot of moving parts to watch that could determine the fate of some well-known names. and we've narrowed down what you need to see at the saturday morning speech that clocked in at over two hours and left us a lot of material to choose from, some of it not suitable for children who might still be awake as "the 11th hour" gets under way on a monday night. and as we start a new week, good evening once